US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The owner of a mine contracted with a purchaser for the latter to go into possession and proceed with the development of, and extract ore from, the mine and to deposit to the credit of the owner in a designated bank the net proceeds up to a specified amount, when deeds to the property, deposited in escrow, should be delivered. The purchaser proceeded with the work, but deposited proceeds to his own credit in another bank, whereupon the owner attached such deposit and took forcible possession of the mine. In a suit brought by the purchaser, held that:

The deposit of proceeds of ore in the specified bank was a condition concurrent or precedent to the obligation of the owner to go on with the contract, and, unless the declaration disclosed an excuse for the breach, the owner was justified in retaking possession.

That the action of the owner in attaching the deposit was not an excuse for a breach by the purchaser, nor did the declaration disclose any sufficient excuse for the breach.

Under the contract, the Act of the owner in suing for part of the purchase price which belonged to him would not prevent him from terminating the contract for failure to perform; there was no election.

10 Ariz. 5 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the construction of a contract for sale of mines and what constituted breaches thereof, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 224 U. S. 176